/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>to have

Fix'd.

Yes. Lust is a sin.

No, read song of solomon

>>733360

/thread

>>733340

As long as they leave open the possibility of having a child (PIV, no contraceptives), no.

>>733356

No, lust is not a sin. Lusting after women that are not your wife is the sin.

>>733367

If I fap thinking on no one, would it not be sin?

>>733365

reopen thread.

>>733340

It's not sinful, most of the time married couples do not have sex with the intent to procreate, they express their love in a physical way and pregnancy is the result of that love. You don't need the intent to procreate to initiate a sexual act in a married couple, but the act must still be open to procreation.

>>733356

Being in love with your wife/husband is not lust. Physical attraction is part of love between man and woman.

>>733360

But the Song of Solomon is an allegory of the mystical marriage of God and the Soul.

It would not be so important to be in the Bible if it was just a love song of Solomon and one of his hundreds of concubines.

>>733393

>But the Song of Solomon is an allegory of the mystical marriage of God and the Soul.

Why can't it be both?

>>733365

>>733360

The idea that the SoS is literal is an ancient heresy, begone Satan.

>>733340

Pleasure can be part of it, but not solely the main reason. The express reasons for the conjugal act are:

1. Pro-creation

2. Unity of the marriage

In Christian terms, solely pleasure means solely for the sake of Lust, which reduces the act to mere masturbation. However, to do it to celebrate the marriage pact, and contain mastery of the body to each other satisfies the "concession" St. Paul speaks of.

>>733401

Because it's literally heresy, and the Mosaic Jews, the Early Church, and any apostolic Church denies the teaching, which has been only espoused by a 5th century Heretic and some Calvinist Protestants.

Because that pleasure is the hormonal command to "Be fruitful and multiply", to abuse God's purposes is to abuse His authority.

If you need something pleasing, then pray to God without deceasing for He's with you always even into the end of the age.

>>733419

>The idea that the SoS is literal is an ancient heresy

what does that have to do with the discussion

>>733451

it means you cannot use the Song of Solomon to justify anything when it comes to the sacrament of marriage, it is a symbolic, mystical writing, not meant to be used to justify anything considering the institution of marriage, except perhaps, Christ's faithfulness and love to His Church.

>>733460

That's not what literal vs nonliteral means, but you're wrong there too

>not meant to be used to justify anything considering the institution of marriage

arbitrary conclusion by you

meanwhile, God says: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2 Tim. 3:16-4:1 KJV)

>>733476

Didn't you just reason that because it's poetic, you shouldn't exegete doctrine in any area but what you arbitrarily selected?

>>733468

ah here we go, a classic "everything that was said in the new testament applies to KJV, cuz KJV is Word of God cuz KJV says so"

i almost missed you people

almost

>>733488

Did I say that?

>>733488

Your argument is circular, even if you aren't a KJV-onlyist, your logic is exactly the same.

Just because someone chose to purposely subvert the doctrine of Jesus Christ in an english translation, does not mean that it was Christ said.

The original Greek has a specific word for adultery, and it was not used.

1 Cor. 7:5

Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

>>733491

wup, meant for >>733489

>>733419

>Pleasure can be part of it, but not solely the main reason. The express reasons for the conjugal act are:

>1. Pro-creation

>2. Unity of the marriage

But I think in healthy sex, including in Christian marriage where its between man and wife, there is nothing wrong with getting pleasure from giving your other half pleasure - and looking forward to sex because you know you get to experience this particular pleasure (of giving your wife pleasure) - be intiimate and and share the most phsycially intensely intimate, pleasureable and vulnerable space with this other person. I cannot see a problem with chasing the pleasure of giving your other half pleasure, it seems eminently natural by design (although everything in moderation, ofc as per >>733503)

and good sex is obviously beautifully designed where there's clealy special reciprocality where you seeing your wife turned on and getting pleasure is a turn on which turns you on which turns her on more and then you on more etc. etc. The pleasure of pleasuring the other, of being the cause of them feeling pleasure, again with this most special person in this most intimate and vulnerable states is really not a bad thing, and clearly will give a big fat tick to 'the unity of marriage' box under 'reaons for the conjugal act' you mention above.

Totally opposite though if you're thinking of the other soley as something. dehumanised an object, who's only purpose is to help you get yourself off. I was about to go on a massive rant about porn then but I'll leave it as off topic and too tired to think.

So I would say OP what kind of pleasure do you mean in your question, and what are the motivations of those who you imagine are seeking it.

>>734516

But it's pleasurably pleasurable saying pleasure so muchpleasure

>>734516

tbf re-reading my post I laughed, 12 counts of it's mention is excessive and it does read like a pish-take, I was v tired when I wrote it

It's kinda like drinking:

Have a few drinks.

Experience the joy of one of God's gifts.

But do not get drunk.

>>733910

In that case you desire pleasure and not unity with your wife. Which leads to fornication and adultery.

>>734516

Anime girls with furry eyelashes freak me out

>>733367

>No, lust is not a sin.

Wrong.

>Lusting after women that are not your wife is the sin.

The sin of adultery

But lust requires the desire for something wrong. Thus, it is impossible to lust for ordinary intercourse with your wife. Anal - sure, that's lust. With contraceptive- yes again? But if you just want sex with your wife, that's not lust.

>>734603

Hmm I dunno, pleasure in and of itself isn't bad though? As long as it's for God-centred and sanctioned purposes, like enjoying giving your wife her satisfaction check the vocab in the marriage bed for the purposes of unity and bonding? You're meant to enjoy sex for goodness sake!

>>734710

>Hmm I dunno, pleasure in and of itself isn't bad though

Said who?

>You're meant to enjoy sex for goodness sake!

Said who?

Why would you have to enjoy sex? Where is it written? If something is very pleasurable that's a distraction. Distraction from God.

>>733356

>>733360

nice

>>733340

Probably sinful. But like… when we talk about that sort of sin is it a really bad sin? Like really really bad sin? How sinful are we talking here.

>>733340

Tamar and Judah

>>734719

>said who?

I''ll concede I'm barely a Christian so I don't have scripture references off the top of my head to back this up, and I'm not going to going to disinguenously google for them presenting myself like I have the awsners and know the discourse and I'm capable of BTFO'ing you. I still have lots to learn. But I'll wait to see if any anons who agree with me are better versed than me take the batton and provide them. And not that the following answers the question (unless you want to frame it as me saying the awnswer is 'me' which I'm not categorically stating for now - see above re: open to verses being posted supporting or clearly contradicting my view) it does seem like common sense to me.

>Why would you have to enjoy sex?

For one thing because offspring should be concieved in the context of the joy and intimacy of the giving of oneself to another in such a way, between the husband and wife, man and woman, (potential) mother and father. I've always thought this to be a key aspect to the importance of the joy and pleasure of sex and it's link to concieving a child. And assumed this was obvious to other people. To me it seems clear God did not intend for you to sex your wife through gritted teeth, whether the sex be for bonding purposes merely open to procreation or with the explicit intention of conception.

>Where is it written?

See first para above.

>If something is very pleasurable that's a distraction. Distraction from God.

It doesn't have to be. God's created the world good. I get that it's currently in a fallen state, but you just sound like a gnostic.

>>733340

As long as it's mutual, within a marriage, not perverted with sodomy (anal and degenerate fetish stuff) and open to procreation there's no problem.

St. Paul even talks about marriage as a sinless outlet for our temptations (though marrying solely for the sex is the sin of…well, lust).

>>733340

>Is it wrong for a married couple having sex just for pleasure? Why?

a married Christian couple should experience pleasure in the mutual love aspect, not just the carnal-mechanical aspect.

>ITT: Nobody knows

once you're married you'll be lucky to have sex for pleasure.

>>733340

> 1 Corinthians 7 1-7

1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

>The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband

>Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

>Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you

>>733356

>Yes. Lust is a sin.

Lust for your wife is NOT a sin.